but it is preferences that are the main issue here IMO and potentially the environment in google(or similar) re: stress/hours worked in senior positions etc.. he's not said women are less able to code
google employee's internal diversity memo goes viral
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
but it is preferences that are the main issue here IMO and potentially the environment in google(or similar) re: stress/hours worked in senior positions etc.. he's not said women are less able to code
I don't think he was arguing their ability but their desire to.
As in there's less women in computer coding because its not what a lot of women want to do, not because the industry is sexist.
for a lot of things its not a 50/50 split between what men and women would choose, doesn't make one thing better than the other or one thing ale/female only.
Usual suspects show up.
Why bring up Biology and testosterone if not to suggest innate difference in capability/preference in a manifesto of this nature?
Clearly we all know women are not going to work at google and other tech firms, there is no evidence of a biological component to this.
As far as I know working as a percentage in stem for women in the US growth has been dramatic, with near parity in mathematics. Only computer work takes a dive from its peak in the 90's
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/pre...gg2MAE&usg=AFQjCNFxpK-QmsDVzcElvKSHis42Lf680Q
Google and others will be aware of this, implying innate biological difference as a cause without evidence is not likely to change the situation in a positive fashion!
He is suggesting difference in preferences.
Usual suspects show up.
Why bring up Biology and testosterone if not to suggest innate difference in capability/preference in a manifesto of this nature?
Clearly we all know women are not going to work at google and other tech firms, there is no evidence of a biological component to this.
As far as I know working as a percentage in stem for women in the US growth has been dramatic, with near parity in mathematics. Only computer work takes a dive from its peak in the 90's
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/pre...gg2MAE&usg=AFQjCNFxpK-QmsDVzcElvKSHis42Lf680Q
Google and others will be aware of this, implying innate biological difference as a cause without evidence is not likely to change the situation in a positive fashion!
Check out Social scientists & Engineers, very interesting. Says a lot! Its the classic truck v plush toy, spinning wheels v cradling/nurturing
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 6,647
Yep.
Why make a claim that has zero scientific evidence in a critique of your employers policy?
No one is suggesting women don't currently prefer not to work with computers/or that the trend in growth of women to choose computer work in the USA has reversed since the 90s.
I'm not even claiming it's impossible for biological factors to be relevant, I am saying such is unproven and opinion presented as fact!
As I have said, in a different context the debate might be welcomed. A written document that from title to content attacks the founders and foundation of a business containing sweeping generalisations and opinion presented as facts founded in science are likely to end in the possibly intended result of martyrdom!
Interestingly I wonder if a case can be won for his opinions to not affect his employment, what a huge victory/precedent it could set towards allowing workers/proletariat more access to the means of production against bourgeoisie business owners, viva la revolution thanks for your support comrades
I didn't write the memo so that is an odd question to direct to me. Though claiming there is zero scientific evidence is rather dubious, if you want a good overview of the evidence for and against the various claims then I suggest taking a look at the link I posted a few days ago, they conclude that the memo's author seems to be correct re: population differences being relevant to understanding gender gaps at google, note again in particular that they're referring to traits regarding interest and enjoyment you seemed to conflate this with ability earlier.
https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/0...es-the-research-say-about-gender-differences/
The question is directed as it was, because you posted a one liner suggesting he is talking about preference on a thread where for 4 pages I have requested evidence of the manifestos claim of pertinent biological difference!
I have previously quoted the source you just linked (on numerous occasions) critical points from them (despite their stated aims) on the manifesto's claims of pertinent biological difference .
In any case if we want to fight the bourgeois business owners oppression of the proletariat workers rights to comment on the foundation of said business, I'm with you brother, fight the power, I look forward to my McDonalds workers thesis on the effect of expansion in south america on climate change
He wasn't even arguing that much. He was arguing that there's some evidence to suggest that it's a possible factor in the different numbers of men and women, that it should be permissable to talk about that possibility, that if it is a factor then there are fair and effective ways to address the imbalance (he suggests some) and that it isn't fair to group all people of one sex together as a group identity and discriminate against people solely because of their sex. It's the last part that sunk him because there's a very strong ideology of group identity and sexism and it's extremely vocal.
It's been pointed out to you more than once... It may not have much of an effect on the theoretical ability to code but biological differences sure effect the desire to enter and remain in certain professions. The evidence of such gendered preferences has high degrees of pervasiveness, ubiquity and is demonstrated by groups of very young children and is observed in other primates rendering a claim that it is solely or mainly down to 'societal conditioning' risible. Gendered group differences can also be seen to increase in lots of cases in more egalitarian states with lots of welfare and childcare assistance which is the exact opposite of what the gender ideologues claim should happen but yet is entirely consistent with the hypothesis that the two sexes do make gendered choices, when considered as groups, as when they are more at liberty to choose their own path more stark gender disparities do sometimes appear.
Evidence demonstrating the important points has been posted more than once in this thread so I dont intend to repeat it given I'm on the mobile.
Nothing in this post should be read that I 100‰agree with the google memo or that societal factors have no part to play.
But the presence of gendered preferences for different work is very relevant to Google and any other employers policies with regards to 'equal' opportunities and 'diversity'
I'm glad we have established your an absoultist ideologue much like your PhD profs argument....
As your quite keen on largely irrelevant jokes and quotes I'll offer you this one
'only a sith deals in absolutes' - Obi Want Kenobi
And why not throw in a second quote whilst we are at it....
'none so blind as those who refuse to see'
Your own graph posted above showing the respective changes in gender distribution is a clear indicator of the stark gender preferences for different sorts of work...
I would be interested to read more about what they classify 'mathematical workers' as because it's a very vague term, more so than any other catergory on that list and I suspect that it may be skewed by less then immediately apparent factors .... for example an increase in female maths teachers... I. E people over things gender preference differentiation
Additionally a lot of the changes on that graph from the 1970's won't reflect solely gender ratio changes in the respective fields as much as changes in the respective fields themselves.....
I. E in 1970 a lot less people would have been involved in 'gender studies' and similar lines of enquiry under the social 'sciences' umbrella and any gender imbalance in these new/increasingly studied and used fields would change the overall gender balance of the wider catergory without necessarily affecting the previous 'core' of work.
It is interesting that 'computer workers' has shown the only signifcant regression on that chart but of all the categories one would observe that 'computer workers' is an almost meaningless term for comparison from 1970 to 2011 as the type of work has changed beyond recognition for 'computer workers' from 1970 to 2011... I would suggest therefore that trying to discern any meaningful trends from that part of the graph is fraught with the possibility for a mass of incorrect assumptions about causal factors....
If I was to rather quickly assess the graph for 'computer workers' I would note that the sharp downturn first occurred between 1990 and 2000....... which is far from a coincidence when even casually considered....
So what happened of relevance to that 1990 to 2000 change?
1) it was a time marked by the start of a mass increase in home computer ownership with a high percentage of homes having at least one PC by 2000
2) it was around the time public access to the Internet first started with massive acceleration in adoption by 2000
And
3) it was around the time the first generation of home computer owning enthusiasts (all those spectrum and commodore owners/ users etc of the late 1970's and 1980's) entered the workforce after school /college/ uni.... (I'm sure I don't need to explain that there was a stark gender dissparity in the numbers of enthusiasts). Before 1990 the people working as 'computer workers' would not, in the main, have grown up as computer enthusiasts as they would not have had access to computers at home or at most levels of study at schools and further education establishments...
Therefore I would hypothesise that the sharp downturn, percentage wise, of women in the 'computer workers' field is not because tech companies suddenly became more hostile to women circa 1990-2000 but because...
1) The nature of the work itself changed....
And 2) It was the first period of time that a personal interest outside of work (home computers) could start to affect who was interested in entering the field to any significant degree
Alternatively I would like to hear your analysis?
So in summary I find the information you post to support your position to be lacking in any attempt at further interpretation beyond accepting that it must support your, I would say, ideological point of view that gender disparities in tech must be down to the industries themselves and not down to gendered differrences in interests and changes to the actual work being done....
The other comment I would make from your source is that after an initial (proportional) increase of women in Stem till 1990 it looks like the proportion of women in stem has largely followed the percentage of women in the workforce as an overall total... Which is, I would suggest, largely what you would expect and that the heavy pressure to 'get women into stem' for at least the last 20 years has not borne out tangible gains... Because, I would suggest l, people, especially the educated, in places like the US can largely follow their desires and not what some ideologues tells them they should do
Last edited:
Clearly I'm not disputing gender differences in preference for employment, it's largely where the discussion arises in the first place!
However, nothing you have posted as long as it is (or the manifesto) constitutes evidence that biological difference is pertinent to googles policy or changes in said preference. Not to say such is impossible, just unproven. As I have said, if a worker for McDonalds wants to critique their business practices by summarising their personal description of a rightwing ethos versus say leftwing positions as they see it, then offer un evidenced opinion mixed with a smattering of research, can we also support that member of the proletariat in their class struggle with the bourgeoise business owners, comrades?
Nothing I have posted even remotely suggests I think 100% of the claims have zero evidence either.
Personally I'm not posting about male thinking, left wing thinking, or otherwise. A claim is either supported by evidence, or in the case of pertinent biological difference, not!
Separately I'm pleased to see so many insist the masses should have the right to challenge business owners and their practices and look forward to such a historic legal precedent!
*Cough, cough*
The post above you exhibit A:
At the very least it's name calling in both sides. Let's not pretend the "right" are so much better than the "left" in this regard. Unless you're calling Carakus2k a leftie?
@Carakus2k . You can debate points well, no need to use silly comments like that. It just makes people take the rest of your post less seriously. Leave those comments to the Alt-right where they belong.
On a side note it is feasible that biological gender difference has played a part in choices/preferences for women in tech, specifically around the 90s.
Who knows perhaps the disruption of established corporates like msft and ibm by small riskier startups of the time was less attractive, anecdotally me and the missus fit that pattern. I'm saying that hypothesis is without evidence.
Who knows perhaps the disruption of established corporates like msft and ibm by small riskier startups of the time was less attractive, anecdotally me and the missus fit that pattern. I'm saying that hypothesis is without evidence.
The Truth has got its boots on: a long, detailed, scientific, properly cited, demolition of the memo.
She spends a bit long discussing credentials at the start, imo, but then it gets to the good stuff. It's very long, so here's the tl;dr: the actual science disagrees with Damore who is wrong about basically everything.
She spends a bit long discussing credentials at the start, imo, but then it gets to the good stuff. It's very long, so here's the tl;dr: the actual science disagrees with Damore who is wrong about basically everything.
Well finally, still misses the point in some regards.
The solution for some ultra-dumb authoritarians with regards to sorting out the imbalance is ultra-fascist, how about finding one that doesn't end up with a different disaster in the future please.
I mean Google spews out this filth constantly, yet still hires 100% more Asians than they apparently should in some eyes (although this is fine as it's a minority seemingly), many times less black people and Hispanics. Google needs to start putting force behind it's "motives" because it's been shown to be utterly feckless throughout this.
Though it seems to hit hiring females about as good as they can achieve as the graduation levels for CS and such are similar enough - so clearly the issue is earlier on.
Everything changed about 30-40 years ago with respect to a bridging of desire between men and women, and in some respects ethnic minorities (though there are some more pertinent issues there, historical malaise and all that), that pushed men out of things like education and certain scientific disciplines, as well as pushed women into the "role" the seem to be told to do. It's quite clear the media has most of the blame here (advertising things purely in the perspective of male orientation like computers because somehow... it was just logical?), it cycled in on itself for decades and it's become nigh impossible to deal with.
The solution for some ultra-dumb authoritarians with regards to sorting out the imbalance is ultra-fascist, how about finding one that doesn't end up with a different disaster in the future please.
I mean Google spews out this filth constantly, yet still hires 100% more Asians than they apparently should in some eyes (although this is fine as it's a minority seemingly), many times less black people and Hispanics. Google needs to start putting force behind it's "motives" because it's been shown to be utterly feckless throughout this.
Though it seems to hit hiring females about as good as they can achieve as the graduation levels for CS and such are similar enough - so clearly the issue is earlier on.
Everything changed about 30-40 years ago with respect to a bridging of desire between men and women, and in some respects ethnic minorities (though there are some more pertinent issues there, historical malaise and all that), that pushed men out of things like education and certain scientific disciplines, as well as pushed women into the "role" the seem to be told to do. It's quite clear the media has most of the blame here (advertising things purely in the perspective of male orientation like computers because somehow... it was just logical?), it cycled in on itself for decades and it's become nigh impossible to deal with.
Last edited:
That in itself makes it sound dubious given the various other pieces in support of various parts of what he's said from multiple authors.
If you want an overview from multiple sources then start here:
https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/0...es-the-research-say-about-gender-differences/
(contains links to various arguments from experts for and against too)
Only had a chance to skim read the blog post you've posted but she doesn't seem to deal well with the main thrust of his argument re: population differences in interests.
You've got to remember this was not meant to picked apart by the whole world, it was an internal memo to raise certain issues regarding employment techniques and diversity. It was leaked, that certainly plays a role, no?
I like how she talks about prairie voles in regards to biological origins but doesn't use our most closely matched dna friends, apes.
Who knows what to believe anymore, you have Gad Saad agreeing with Damore, his whole life has been dedicated to this sort of stuff, then you have the opposite view, it's an absolute minefield.
Interesting article.
https://necpluribusimpar.net/women-underrepresented-philosophy-care/
Graph from that article.
https://necpluribusimpar.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/women-in-philosophy.png
Last edited:
What a surprise she's another left leaning SJW millennial stereotype masquerading as a 'liberal' .....
https://www.gofundme.com/helpusflytomarch
Please send me your $$$ so I can go 'protest' a democratically elected present...
Her twitter page is as expected....
https://mobile.twitter.com/eringiglio?lang=en
Don't worry I'll move I on to examining her argument soon .... Wont hold my breath that it won't be found wanting
Last edited: